Recent content by Gorgon Zee

With that broad definition, I will not argue the point. Essentially anything you do for the game is aimed at play, and so, everything is paramount. I was just hoping for a bit of differentiation.

:-) You stated a bit ago: I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what constitutes "play" in a broad sense, but my overall thesis was directed at "play" meaning actually sitting at the table doing the thing. I probably should have more rigorously defined that. So...

Per the T&R page, this is the right forum to pose this question. It is related to a moderation decision, but honestly I just want general clarification; I am not challenging the moderation. So the sentence I have in mind from T&R is as follows: And in this category I should mention the "no...

I believe the OP has clarified that by "play" they mean "at the table play", which makes sense because otherwise pretty much anything is "play".

Sort of a minor aside here, but I think it's helpful to point out that this is not a core Christian concept. It was first mentioned as a concept by Augustine, but in reference only to deciding how to mete out punishments. Gandhi mainstreamed it in I think the 1920s in his biography as "Hate the...

I pretty much agree with the OP's position, but I'm going to try and argue against it, just to see if there is any runway in that. So I'm going to make my statements a bit more pointed -- so feel free to disagree violently - no offence! Position: Focusing on play is good for short campaigns and...

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. No-one doubts that you can do that -- stating that it "not a prompt" is your error. I also note you are unwilling to become better informed, so there really is little point continuing any conversation with you.

well ... no. Dealign with the second point first, current main belief its that people store information as concepts -- we relate concepts to each other and that is how we build knowledge. GenAI very explicitly does not have concepts -- it deals entirely with expressions. So when you read Lord...

This is factually and technically completely wrong. I'm afraid it also shows that you really have no idea how AI works -- which is fine -- I don't have any real idea how cell reproduction works. But it does mean that we can't take your statements about AI seriously or treat your opinions as...

You are excluding the third option, which is that the result is not actually creative, and that it is simply a non-creative derivative. It’s not that the AI has been creative, or that you have. The result is simply not creative. If you photocopy a piece of art, neither you nor the photocopier...

I never said that. I said the prompt creator was NOT the creator. That does not mean that the AI is the creator. If you have been following the legal news on AI, you will note that that is indeed the current legal thinking.

That's a philosophical question that doesn't require AI to discuss. Much art is guided by a patron or client, but we don't tend to think of them as creators. We don't give them rights to the work unless they have explicit contracts to say they do. To me, when I look at The Last Supper, I never...

Just to be clear -- the building itself is copyright, not just the drawings. You cannot copy a building without permission if it is not in the public domain. No Falling Water knockoffs allowed for another 30 or so years ...

So, this is just not how AI art works. If it built an image for which you specified every pixel exactly, then your argument would have merit. However, you would not be using an AI because -- by definition -- they are using intelligence, not "just following direction". Your prompt for the engine...

It's a bit of a tangent, but could you back that up with a citation? My impression is that although the laws are different especially in how they evaluate impact, the basic principle that copyright covers the expression of the rules (the text, images and presentation) but not the underlying...